Executive summary
The Regional University Study Hubs (RUSH; or Regional Hubs) program is an innovative policy tool that enables people living in regional, rural, and remote (RRR) areas to access higher education. This access to higher education is facilitated through bespoke and dedicated study areas that are staffed and have appropriate study infrastructure, including high-speed internet. The program commenced in 2018 with the first round of federal funding (Cohort One) and has since expanded to over 56 Regional Hubs in five cohorts of funding. Despite this expansion of the Regional Hubs, very little research has investigated how and why they work, especially regarding how they enable those living in RRR areas to participate in higher education (“widening participation”).
This research investigated the widening participation abilities of the Regional Hubs using a mixed-methods approach. I conducted interviews with 57 stakeholders at nine Regional Hubs (students, staff, community representatives), surveyed 26 Regional Hubs, and collected ethnographic observations during site visits. Four key findings emerged from this research, all of which enhance our understanding of the relationship between the Regional Hubs and their widening participation effects, as well as their role in RRR communities.
The first finding is that Regional Hubs widen participation. They do this by offering a dedicated study space with appropriate facilities and study infrastructure (such as high-speed internet). Further, users of Regional Hubs identify more as students, which increases their retention and self-belief in their capabilities. Regional Hubs also cultivate a culture of higher education in their communities, which provides additional benefits to the student identity of their users.
The second finding is that staff have an essential role in the widening participation activities of the Regional Hubs. Positive staff–student relationships were widely reported, and staff were referred to as friendly, trustworthy, and welcoming. These positive relationships further enhance the student-identity widening participation functions. In addition, staff were seen as relational navigators, building self-efficacy and self-worth in students, therefore improving their ability to succeed in their studies.
The third finding is that the partnerships in which the Regional Hubs are involved strengthen the widening participation activities. Three key partnerships were identified: with higher education institutions (HEIs); with other education providers, including primary and secondary schools; and with the community at large. All three partnerships have their unique strengths and challenges, but all enhance the ability for Regional Hubs to widen participation. For HEIs, this partnership strengthens support services; for the community, it reinforces a collective identity grounded in educational achievement; and for other education providers, it broadens aspirations by highlighting clear pathways to further education.
The final finding is that Regional Hubs contribute to prosperous regional communities. This contribution is twofold: the first operates by developing the workforce in such a way that it meets the skill needs of their communities. The second is through encouraging young people to stay in community—in effect lessening the brain drain that many RRR communities experience.
An additional contribution I make through this research is my suggestion for a new typology to better understand the form and function of the Regional Hubs. I propose the Operational-Distinction Model as a two-type typology that groups Regional Hubs into either a “Partnered Course” model or a “General-Institution Neutral” model. This typing considers the following operational characteristics: widening participation, regional development, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, enabling programs and tertiary preparation, and vocational training integration. These characteristics are informed by three factors: 1) geography and state-based factors, 2) demographic factors, and 3) community-driven factors. The Operational-Distinction Model allows future researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to better analyse the Regional Hubs program through type-comparisons and insights.
As a result of this research, I propose three recommendations to strengthen the RUSH program: 1) renew funding and reconsider funding mechanisms; 2) develop and implement standards of practice; and 3) strengthen partnerships across the sector. These recommendations, if they are all accepted and implemented, would considerably strengthen the Regional Hubs program and enable more communities to experience an enhanced widening participation effect. In addition to these recommendations, I have developed a practitioner resource Roadmap to success: A ‘What Works’ guide to Regional University Study Hubs partnerships, appended to this report and available on the website of the Australian Centre for Student Equity and Success. This resource is a guide to best practice for university–Regional Hubs partnerships and will further enhance the RUSH program.
This research demonstrates the importance of Regional Hubs both to RRR communities and Australia more generally. There are the obvious economic benefits that a more upskilled populace brings, but there are also unquantifiable benefits that higher education can bring to these communities. These include aspiration, innovation, and tenacity, all traits that Australia needs when looking towards the future.
Recommendations
Three recommendations have emerged from this research:
- Renew Regional Hub funding and reconsider funding mechanisms.
- Develop and implement standards of practice.
- Strengthen partnerships across the sector.
I acknowledge that these recommendations are multifaceted, but it is my belief, informed by the evidence collected and presented in this report, that if they are implemented in full there would be immense benefit to the Regional University Study Hubs (RUSH, or Regional Hubs) program through an increased ability to widen participation and grow higher education aspirations in regional, rural, and remote (RRR) communities; and through a more stable and consistent economic and political operating environment.
Renew funding and reconsider funding mechanisms
I recommend that the Commonwealth Government commit to funding more cohorts of Regional Hubs. This research, and other studies (such as Baker et al., 2025; Stone et al., 2022), overwhelmingly suggest that Regional Hubs widen participation. They allow people from RRR backgrounds to engage in higher education, in turn building a more educated society and prosperous communities. There is enormous benefit to the Regional Hubs, and more funding rounds would allow more communities to experience this benefit. Further, the Regional Hubs are a way to meet the Universities Accord’s ambitious target of 80% of the working-age population holding a tertiary qualification by 2050 (Australian Universities Accord Panel, 2023). This target cannot be met without people living in RRR communities obtaining tertiary qualifications.
I recommend that the Commonwealth Government reconsider the partnership funding mechanisms (previously Commonwealth Supported Places; currently partnership program funding) to better support the sustainability and growth of Regional Hubs. Funding designed to facilitate partnerships should not be programmatic. Instead, it should emphasise flexibility, innovation, and sustainability, allowing Regional Hubs to allocate resources according to what is most needed to meet the key performance indicators of their respective grants. These new funding mechanisms may include program-based activities, operational costs, or capital expenditure.
These elements of reconsidered funding were a recurring theme in the research. For example, some Regional Hubs have had to curtail the services they offer because of overwhelming demand, while others quickly outgrew their allocated spaces as student usage exceeded projections. This has meant staff have had to be accommodated in less than appropriate spaces. While some participants said the current funding arrangements were flexible and not onerous for them to report on, I suggest taking what works from the current funding arrangements and strengthening it.
I recommend that state governments commit funding to the RUSH program. Many Regional Hubs have a positive impact on state economies through developing the state workforce; however, the majority do so without receiving state funds. It is entirely appropriate that state governments fund services from which they receive a benefit.
Develop and implement standards of practice
To ensure the long-term sustainability, consistency, and quality of the RUSH program, I recommend the development and implementation of comprehensive standards of practice. These standards are not intended to regulate Regional Hubs but rather to ensure quality and provide Regional Hubs with the confidence that they are adhering to the multitude of external regulatory frameworks. By ensuring that they are compliant with these frameworks, Regional Hubs can retain the autonomy needed to design and deliver services tailored to the unique needs of the communities they serve. Implementing such standards would guarantee that students receive consistent high-quality service, government funders can be confident that all legal and grant requirements are met, and each Regional Hub can operate without placing stakeholders at risk.
Achieving this requires structured support and targeted capacity-building measures. Regional Hubs must be equipped with tailored capability development initiatives and access to shared resources that strengthen the broader network. As the RUSH program continues to expand, adequate resourcing and strategic investment will be critical to sustaining growth and maintaining quality.
While the RUSH Network has laid important groundwork, additional resourcing is necessary to support long-term success. Collaborative capacity-building efforts will further enhance the program’s resilience and effectiveness, enabling Regional Hubs to meet regulatory expectations with confidence while delivering services tailored to the unique needs of their communities. To ensure relevance and secure buy-in, these standards must be co-designed with Regional Hubs as the principal actors. The co-design process should actively involve higher education institutions (HEIs), the Department of Education, Country Universities Centre (CUC), Geraldton Universities Centre, the RUSH Network, and other key stakeholders. This collaborative approach will ensure the standards are practical, relevant, and reflective of the diverse needs of regional communities while preserving the autonomy of each Regional Hub.
The rationale for this recommendation is grounded in an extensive evidence base collected throughout this research, including via interviews with key stakeholders, survey responses, and practitioner ethnographic observations. The findings present a compelling argument for formalising practices across the RUSH Network. As the program continues to grow, it will attract increasing public scrutiny. Establishing robust standards of practice will mitigate potential public criticism by demonstrating accountability, operational excellence, and a commitment to best practices while highlighting the Regional Hubs’ capacity to innovate and respond to local needs.
Further professionalisation of the RUSH sector can be achieved through the development of a micro-credential for staff. This credential could incorporate many of the recommended standards of practice, strengthening partnerships between Regional Hubs and HEIs if co-hosted and co-created by HEIs. In the absence of a micro-credential, a centralised professional development hub offering training on the standards of practice should be developed. This hub would provide ongoing professional development opportunities tailored to the unique needs of Regional Hub staff, fostering continuous improvement across the program and ensuring operational consistency without stifling local adaptability.
The development and implementation of these standards will provide clear operational benchmarks to enhance practice, respect the local autonomy of Regional Hubs while ensuring consistency in core operational areas, and strengthen capabilities through shared learning and resources. These standards will also guarantee that all Regional Hubs meet legal, grant, and educational requirements, thereby enhancing trust in the RUSH program among the higher education sector, government funders, and local communities.
Strengthen partnerships across the sector
I recommend the strengthening of partnerships across the RUSH sector through the following five actions:
- Action One: The Commonwealth Government should adopt learnings from the Regional Partnerships Project Pool Program (RPPPP) and incorporate them into their decision making, particularly the learnings from the Eastern Australia Regional University Centre Partnership (EARUCP) project.
- Action Two: HEIs must continue to shift from transactional partnerships with Regional Hubs to more altruistic, community-driven engagement.
- Action Three: The Commonwealth Department of Education must keep and strengthen the community-owned and responsive elements of the RUSH program.
- Action Four: Regional Hubs must continue to seek new partnerships and strengthen existing partnerships.
- Action Five: More research is needed into the RUSH program, but this must be done in partnership with all stakeholders, especially the Regional Hubs.
Partnerships are crucial to the widening participation abilities of Regional Hubs; therefore, every effort should be made to strengthen them. The five above actions will do this and are based on the evidence collected through this research. For example, both EARUCP (co-led by CUC Central and the University of Technology Sydney) and RPPPP are illustrations of how multiple universities and Regional Hubs can collaborate effectively. This model demonstrates the power of community-led, widening participation strategies, combining the strengths of both universities and Regional Hubs. This model was mentioned throughout the data as an example of how policy can influence partnerships, to ensure sustainable outcomes and create a more inclusive educational ecosystem across regional and underserved areas. There should be more of these types of partnership.
This research demonstrates how Regional Hubs are successful in embedding higher education within the social, cultural, and economic fabric of their RRR communities. When universities partner with Regional Hubs, they have the opportunity to reimagine their role—not as external providers imposing predetermined frameworks but as collaborators committed to fostering equitable access, inclusion, and long-term capacity-building. The five actions—especially Action Two—of this recommendation will continue to see this type of best-practice partnership develop.
Continue reading by downloading the full report below.
